The following papers were read and considered by the Court on this motion:
Defendant’s Notice of Motion, Defendant’s Affirmation with annexed
Exhibit A, Claimant’s “Notice of Motion for Calendered of
Argument,” Claimant’s “Affirmation in Support of Notice of
Motion for Calendered of Argument” and the filed Claim. Defendant, the
State of New York, has brought this motion seeking an order dismissing the claim
pursuant to Court of Claims Act (CCA) § 10(3).

Claimant, Constantinee L. Jackson, a pro se inmate, alleges in the filed
claim that on January 27, 2007, he was given the wrong medicine by a nurse at
the Southport Correctional Facility. Claimant seems to also contend that his
medical needs were not properly attended to during a portion of his
incarceration from March 20, 2006 through May 29, 2006. Claimant served his
claim on the Attorney General’s Office on July 16, 2007 and filed the
claim with the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims on November 1, 2007.

Defendant seeks dismissal of the filed claim since it was not timely served
upon defendant nor timely filed with the Court. In response, claimant filed a
request for oral argument of the motion. The Court then mailed a letter to
claimant dated December 19, 2007 informing him that his request for oral
argument was denied and that the motion would be decided on the papers properly
filed and served prior to the motion return date. Thereafter, claimant
submitted no further papers on this motion.

CCA § 10(3) provides that:

“[a] claim to recover damages for injuries to property or for personal
injuries caused by the negligence or unintentional tort of an officer or
employee of the state while acting as such officer or employee, shall be filed
and served upon the attorney general within ninety days after the accrual of
such claim, unless the claimant shall within such time serve upon the attorney
general a written notice of intention to file a claim therefor, in which event
the claim shall be filed and served upon the attorney general within two years
after the accrual of such claim.”

The Court of Appeals has long held that “[b]ecause suits against the
State are allowed only by the State’s waiver of sovereign immunity and in
derogation of the common law statutory requirements conditioning suit must be
strictly construed” (Dreger v New York State Thruway Authority, 81
NY2d 721, 724 [1992]). Accordingly, claimants who have not met the service
requirements of the Court of Claims Act have not properly commenced their
actions (Lichtenstein v State of New York, 93 NY2d 911 [1999]). The
Court finds, without contradiction, that claimant failed to serve and file his
claim in a timely manner as required by CCA § 10(3). Consequently, this
Court has no jurisdiction over the filed claim.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to dismiss the
claim numbered 114441 is granted.